Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
). But it was
agreed by everyone on SSPC 55 that ET
is primarily an
index used by researchers, and that practitioners would be
more likely to use the ACS if the meteorological input data
was a more familiar and accessible index. The ACS was,
therefore, reformulated in terms of mean monthly outdoor
air temperature, dened simply as the arithmetic average of
the mean daily minimum and mean daily maximum outdoor
(dry bulb) temperatures for the month in question. This
climate data is readily available and familiar to engineers.
4.3. Limits
The original analysis of RP-884 extended from a mean
outdoor air temperature of 533 8C. Several members of
SSPC 55 felt the lower end was too extreme, regardless of
what the data actually showed, and there was some discus-
sion as to whether the lower end of the graph should simply
be arbitrarily truncated at a higher mean outdoor air tem-
perature, or that it showed be limited to non-heating con-
ditions. In the end, both recommendations prevailed, and the
ACS presented in Section 5.3 of Standard 55 ends at 10 8C
mean outdoor air temperature. It was also discussed whether
the graph should end sharply at the end points, or whether
the lines should extend horizontally when outdoor tempera-
ture extended beyond the 1033 8C. It was decided to
truncate the graph at the endpoints of the range of measured
data, and specify that the allowable indoor operative tem-
perature limits may not be extrapolated to outdoor tempera-
tures above or below the end points of the curve. An
awkward consequence of this decision, however, is an
unrealistic step change in allowable indoor temperatures
as soon as the mean outdoor air temperature rises above
33 8C. Below this point, users of Standard 55 can refer to the
wider range of acceptable indoor temperatures in Section
5.3. Above this point, the graph no longer applies and the
only predictive tool available is the PMV, which not only
will require signicantly cooler indoor temperatures, but has
already been shown to be unreliable for predicting thermal
responses of people in naturally ventilated buildings under
warm conditions.
5. Using the adaptive comfort standard
How might people actually use the ACS? Like any part of
a thermal comfort standard, recommendations for accepta-
ble indoor temperatures can be used during the design stage
of a new building, or for the operation and evaluation of an
existing building.
As a design standard (or, simply a design tool) for
naturally conditioned spaces, one might rst use a building
simulation tool to predict what indoor conditions might be
achieved. The ACS could then be used to determine whether
those thermal conditions are likely to be acceptable. If they
are not acceptable, then design modications might be made
(i.e. to the thermal mass or fenestration), and the process
repeated. If such changes prove to be ineffectual in sub-
sequent simulations, a decision to air-condition might then
be appropriate.
If windows in a building were operated both manually and
automatically, or if the ACS were eventually allowed to
apply to mixed-mode buildings, perhaps it could also be
used as an operating guideline. The interior temperatures
might be allowed to oat within the more energy-efcient
acceptability limits of the ACS, and when the temperatures
reached the maximum limits then the air-conditioning could
be turned on in a limited way to ensure that temperatures
stayed within the ACS limits (rather than switching to the
narrow set-points of a traditional, centrally-controlled air-
conditioned building). The ACS could also be used in
mixed-mode buildings to establish the interior design tem-
peratures used for load calculations for sizing equipment. If
the building was going to be operated within the wider limits
of the ACS, this would also the equipment to be downsized,
resulting in potential cost-savings and space-savings as well.
If the ACS were allowed to apply to task/ambient con-
ditioning systems, then the buildings ambient environment
could be allowed to oat within the broader limits of the
ACS, while the individual controls would allowoccupants to
control their local thermal conditions to achieve their pre-
ferred comfort levels.
The ACS could also be used to evaluate the predicted
acceptability of existing thermal conditions in naturally
conditioned spaces, in the same way that the PMV-based
thermal comfort standard is used to evaluate the accept-
ability of thermal conditions in HVAC buildings. Some
weighted time function could be devised to index the dura-
tion and intensity of temperature excursions outside the ACS
zone and this might serve as a useful quality benchmarking
tool for property managers.
In all these applications, one of the advantages of the ACS
over the PMV-based model, at least for situations where it
applies, is its simplicity. One needs to estimate what mean
clo and met levels might be before using the PMVmodel, but
the relationship between clothing and climate is already
accounted for in the ACS.
The ACS is also intended for continued use as a research
tool. The database is available on-line (http://atmos.es.-
mq.edu.au/rdedear/ashrae_rp884_home.html), and it is
expected that other researchers will continue to use it to
investigate new questions, or to validate new eld data from
buildings with operable windows, or perhaps with other
forms of personal control.
Another potential application is the use of the ACS for
regional climate analysis, as a way of investigating the
feasibility of using natural ventilation, and the potential
energy savings that might result. If a buildings interior
conditions were able to be maintained within the ACS limits
R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 549561 557
entirely by natural means, then one could potentially save
100% of the cooling energy that would otherwise be used by
an air-conditioner to maintain conditions within the more
narrow ASHRAE Standard 55 comfort zone. If one were to
apply the ACS to a mixed-mode building, however, the air-
conditioner might be used in a limited way to keep the more
extreme temperatures from rising past the acceptability
limits of the ACS. In this case, the energy savings would
be proportional to the difference between set-points dened
by the upper limit of the ACS, compared to typical set-points
used in an air-conditioned building.
Fig. 6 presents an approach to this type of analysis, where
we began with July climate data for the US, and then
compared the upper 80% acceptability limit of the ACS
to the upper limit of the ASHRAE Standard 55 comfort zone
(based on 0.5 clo and 50% RH), which is 26 8C. The map
shows the regions of the country where the difference in
comfort temperatures using these two methods ranges from
0 to 5 8C. Energy savings would be proportional to the
difference in these set-points. This is actually a very con-
servative estimate, and savings are likely to be much higher
than indicated since it is more common to nd buildings
operating at the center of the ASRHAE Standard 55 comfort
zone (approximately 23 8C) than at the upper end of 26 8C. It
should be emphasized that this is a preliminary application
of GIS technology to thermal comfort and is based on coarse
data. However, the picture is still indicative of the large
potential for saving energy by using natural ventilation
instead of air-conditioning (assuming that people have direct
control of the operable windows, and are also free to adapt
their clothing).
6. Moving into the 21st century
Finally, we would like to address the primary objective of
this special issue of Energy and Buildings, and the
conference from which these papers were drawn. What
new thermal comfort research is needed and how can it
be incorporated into the development of new standards? The
collective research that has formed the basis of the ACS has
exposed many signicant gaps in our knowledge of thermal
comfort, and we would like to highlight some key issues
regarding the application of research and new standards
towards improving the design and operation of buildings.
6.1. Satisfaction and inter-individual differences
In developing the ACS we applied the relationship
between mean thermal sensation and % dissatised, as
illustrated in the classic PPD versus PMV curve. In so doing,
we were adopting two broad assumptions that should be
investigated in future research. First is the traditional
assumption that dissatisfaction is associated with votes of
2 and 3 on the seven-point ASHRAE thermal sensation
scale (with 0 representing neutral). Is there a better way to
assess dissatisfaction, or acceptability, than having to make
this indirect association with thermal sensation votes?
Unfortunately, eld data has shown that direct assessments
of acceptability often do not produce statistically signicant
relationships with environmental measurements, and so the
nature of such questions needs further study.
Perhaps a more important research priority is the assump-
tion that inter-individual differences are the same in both the
Fig. 6. Comparison of recommended indoor comfort temperatures, upper limits of ACS vs. ASHRAE Standard 55. Darker areas indicate larger differences
between set-point temperatures, and therefore, larger energy savings, by switching to the adaptive comfort standard.
558 R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 549561
laboratory and the eld (this is at the heart of applying the
lab-based PMVPPD relationship to standards, that are then
applied in the eld). Is there a rational basis to this, or is it
just a leap of faith? The early work of McIntyre [14] and
Humphreys [15] examined these questions, but it has not yet
affected the way we apply laboratory data to building
standards. Certainly, the role of clothing is one obvious
inuencing factor, since there is much greater variability in
occupants clothing patterns in real buildings, compared to
the standard uniforms used in lab studies, and to the single
average clo value that might be chosen when using the PMV-
based standards. If people dress merely for fashion, then
random differences in clothing are likely to increase inter-
individual differences (and increase the % dissatised) when
a group is exposed to a single thermal environment. But if
people dress in response to the expected indoor/outdoor
climates, and to their own thermal sensitivities (i.e. some
people are typically warmer or cooler than the group), then
the inter-individual differences would likely decrease (and
the % dissatised decrease as well). In a study of ofce
workers in Australia, Morgan [16] found that corporate dress
codes override thermal comfort considerations (i.e. building
occupants start responding like climate chamber experimen-
tal subjects in a standard uniform). We also know that
women typically have a signicantly more weather/season
sensitive clothing response than their male counterparts in
the ofce, so this creates two quite distinct sub-populations
in terms of thermal insulation. The implications of this and
other clothing behavioral issues for indoor climate manage-
ment need further research.
6.2. Climatic context
It is clear that outdoor climate inuences thermal percep-
tions beyond just the clothing that we wear. It probably has a
psychological effect on expectations, particularly in natu-
rally ventilated buildings that are more closely connected to
the natural swings of the outdoor climate. The ACS was
developed using mean monthly outdoor temperature as the
input, because this would be one of the easiest for practi-
tioners to usethe month is the typical unit of analysis for
climatological records. However, an interesting question for
researchers to continue to investigate is what other char-
acterizations of the outdoor climate might be more highly
correlated to peoples perception of indoor comfort? Perhaps
future studies can investigate parameters such as simulta-
neous outdoor temperature, daily average, some measure of
daily range or peak conditions, a weighted measure of the
recent history of temperatures over the previous few days or
weeks, etc. And what about temperature forecasts? It seems
reasonable to expect that they inuence clothing decisions
too. While some of these questions have already been
investigated (particularly noteworthy is Humphreys [17]
examination of clothing insulation patterns as a function of
weighted functions of outdoor temperature) there remains
more work to be done.
6.3. The role of control
An increasing number of people are accepting and even
promoting the use of individual thermal control in buildings,
either as operable windows, task/ambient conditioning sys-
tems, or other forms. The questions no longer center around
should we?, but instead are focused on how?. Effort
needs to be spent on developing new products and technol-
ogies, educating architects and engineers, documenting and
reducing costs, and re-evaluating building re codes that are
often a signicant barrier to incorporating such technolo-
gies. There are also many issues that thermal comfort
researchers need to address, with the aim of providing
alternative recommendations for acceptable thermal condi-
tions when occupants themselves are able to control those
conditions. In particular, previous studies have indicated that
there is a difference between the effects of perceived control
and utilized control [18]. This has important implications for
the design and operation of products, environmental control
systems, and buildings.
The assumption to date in thermal comfort research has
been that heat balance is the bottom line and that avenues
of heat gain/loss are largely interchangeable. However,
recent Danish climate chamber research [19] indicates quite
persuasively that 28 8C is overwhelmingly preferable to
26 8C (with xed airspeeds of 0.2 m/s) if the subjects in
the warmer environment are permitted to select their own
preferred airspeed. In this scenario, higher temperatures
would allow signicant cooling energy savings in situations
where outdoor air can be utilized for cooling with natural
ventilation, or even in air-conditioned spaces with task/
ambient conditioning (with control of air movement),
because more use can be made of the economizer cycle.
There is also evidence that the increased availability of
personal control has positive effects far beyond just thermal
comfort. Hawkes [20] found that energy efciency was
actually improved when people were given control of their
environment, because energy use was more closely aligned
to needs rather than maintaining uniformity based on exter-
nally-imposed standards. Wilson and Hedge [21] found that
fewer building-related ill health symptoms and greater
productivity were achieved as the perceived level of indi-
vidual control increased. Additional research has been done
on this topic over the last decade and needs to be reviewed.
The impact of personal control should not be underesti-
mated, but clearly needs to be investigated further so we
can understand its impact on comfort, health, productivity,
and energy use, and how we can best incorporate it into
buildings.
6.4. Beyond thermal neutrality
Thermal comfort standards, and mechanical engineers
designing environmental control system, typically strive
to provide neutral thermal conditions that are constant
in time, and uniform throughout the indoor environment.
R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 549561 559
The goal is to avoid the negative (discomfort), and minimize
dissatisfaction. Is it possible to move beyond this thinking?
Is thermal monotony always a good thing? McIntyre [14]
made an early plea for counteracting thermal boredom with
uctuating interior temperatures to meet our inherent needs
for sensory stimulation. Kwok [22] reviewed research and
collected anecdotes regarding the concept of thermal monot-
ony, or thermal boredom, in indoor environments. In contrast
to engineering characterizations of comfort, she found a
large number of architectural educators who encourage
students to explore and utilize the natural dynamic qualities
of the thermal environment as inspiration for generating
architectural form. We would argue that thermal qualities
can and should be used in a more purposeful way to add to
the richness of our indoor environments. Perhaps we should
be aiming for a higher level of experiential quality in our
environments, where pleasantness rather than neutral-
ity are the goals [23]? Designers should strive to create
spaces that are better than neutral, where people can nd
thermal delight, can interact with their environments, and
can be refreshed and stimulated by them [24]. Perhaps this is
too much to ask of a thermal comfort standard, but it is
certainly an appropriate idea to place in the minds of
designers. For example, in situations of high density occu-
pancy for sustained periods of 6090 min (like a classroom),
there is typically a steady temperature ramp that, while
incrementally unnoticeable, can often give rise to wide-
spread occupant discomfort towards the end of the exposure.
In such situations, it may well be appropriate to ush the
occupied zone with periodic bursts of air from the
mechanical ventilation system in a way that breaks thermal
monotony and offsets mild but growing warm discomfort.
6.5. Beyond thermal comfort
Researchers need to take a more integrative view of the
indoor environment. With few exceptions, most studies look
at one outcome at a time, and try to assess what the ideal
environmental conditions should be for optimizing thermal
comfort, indoor air quality, energy consumption, or produc-
tivity. Is there a way to optimize them all simultaneously?
Research ndings often suggest conicting goals for the
indoor environment. For example, recent work has shown
that perceptions of indoor air quality are improved when
temperatures are cooler, and engineers can therefore,
decrease ventilation rates [25] by decreasing indoor tem-
peratures. But what are the energy implications of this
nding? Although decreased ventilation rates would reduce
energy consumption, cooler temperatures would either
decrease or increase energy use, depending on whether it
is a heating or cooling situation. Before we use these
laboratory studies to promote turning down air-conditioning
set-points to promote good health, we should look closely
at the numerous large-scale building studies conducted over
the last two decades that have examined the connection
between sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and
ventilation system type. These studies reveal a statistically
signicant relationship in which buildings with air-condi-
tioning, with or without humidication, are consistently
associated with 30200% higher incidences of SBS symp-
toms, compared to naturally ventilated buildings [26,27].
Air movement also appears to have an effect on perceived
indoor air quality. Many practitioners report that the stillness
of air within the occupied zone of most air-conditioned
spaces (as mandated by current standards like ASHRAE
Standard 55) is associated with complaints of poor quality
dead air. Perhaps elevated air speeds within the occupied
zone cannot only permit thermal comfort to be achieved at
higher temperatures (thereby saving on refrigeration
energy), but also improve perceived air quality, or at least
offset the enthalpy effect referred to in [25]. The work of
Toftum et al. [19], discussed earlier with regard to the role of
personal control, would certainly lend support to this idea.
Many important thermal comfort questions still need
answers, and a new generation of researchers need to be
trained to provide them. In thinking beyond just thermal
comfort, many people can easily agree on some of the more
obvious recommendations for improved environmental con-
trolreduce indoor pollution sources, deliver the air closer
to the occupants, provide personal control where feasible.
But tougher questions still remain. What are our objectives
for conditioning the thermal environment? Is it better to
provide air warmer or cooler than the neutral tempera-
tures at the middle of existing standards? The answer may
depend on contextare you trying to optimize comfort,
indoor air quality, energy, productivity, or all of them? Is the
budget the prime consideration or does one also take into
account the environmental impacts of the building across its
life-cycle? Is it even reasonable to think that we can create a
single environment that optimizes all these outcomes for all
people? Probably not. Perhaps the most appropriate goal
would be to provide a variety of means for people to control
their own environment. For example, this could range from a
workplace culture that allows a exible dress code and
policy for taking breaks, to providing means for control
of the local physical environment (task/ambient condition-
ing, windows, local controls, etc.), or providing areas within
the building that have different thermal conditions.
One clear conclusion seems to emergeapproaches to
indoor climate management based on one-size-ts-all
and uniform, world-wide conditioning with cool, still,
dry air are fast becoming curious anomalies of the last
century.
Acknowledgements
We extend our gratitude to ASHRAE for funding the
adaptive model research (RP-884) underpinning this paper,
to the many researchers around the world who generously
donated their raw eld data, to Donna Cooper of Macquarie
University for her work on the database and original statistical
560 R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 549561
analysis, and to David White of University of California,
Berkeley for his additional statistical analysis. Michael
Humphreys, Fergus Nicol and P. Ole Fanger are also thanked
for many discussions of the issues raised in this paper.
References
[1] ASHRAE Standard 55thermal environmental conditions for
human occupancy, ASHRAE Inc., 1992, Atlanta.
[2] M. Fountain, G.S. Brager, R. de Dear, Energy and Buildings 24
(1996) 179182.
[3] G.S. Brager, R.J. de Dear, Energy and Buildings 27 (1) (1998)
8396.
[4] R.J. de Dear, ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1b) (1998a) 11411152.
[5] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1a) (1998)
145167.
[6] G.S. Brager, R.J. de Dear, ASHRAE Journal 42 (10) (2000) 2128.
[7] G. Schiller, E. Arens, F. Bauman, C. Benton, M. Fountain, T.
Doherty, ASHRAE Transactions 94 (2) (1988).
[8] W. Rudloff, World Climates, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft,
Stuttgart, 1981.
[9] P.O. Fanger, Thermal ComfortAnalysis and Applications in
Environmental Engineering, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen,
1970.
[10] P.O. Fanger, J. Toftum, Thermal comfort in the futureexcellence
and expectation, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Moving
Thermal Comfort Standards into the 21st Century, Windsor, UK, 58
April 2001, pp. 1119.
[11] M.E. Fountain, C. Huizenga, ASHRAE Journal 38 (9) (1996) 3942.
[12] E. Huntington, Mainsprings of Civilization, Mentor, New York,
1945.
[13] F.S. Bauman, T.G. Carter, A.V. Baughman, E.A. Arens, ASHRAE
Transactions 104 (1) (1998).
[14] D.A. McIntyre, Indoor Climate, Applied Science Publishers,
London, 1980.
[15] M.A. Humphreys, Journal of Inst. Heat. and Vent. Engineering 44
(1976) 527.
[16] C. Morgan, The Role of Clothing in Climatic Adaptation,
Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2000.
[17] M.A. Humphreys, The influence of season and ambient temperature
on human clothing behavior, in: P.O. Fanger, O. Valbjrn (Eds.),
Indoor Climate, Danish Building Research Institute, Copenhagen,
1979, pp. 699714.
[18] M. Paciuk, Coming of AgeEnvironmental Design Research
Association 21 (1990) 303312.
[19] J. Toftum, A.K. Melikov, L.W. Rasmussen, A.A. Kuciel, E.A.
Cinalska, A. Tynel, M. Bruzda and P.O. Fanger, Human Response to Air
Movement. Part I. Preference and Draft Discomfort, DTUInternational
Center for Indoor Environment and Energy, Lyngby, 2000.
[20] D. Hawkes, Energy and Buildings 5 (1982) 127134.
[21] S. Wilson, A. Hedge, The Office Environment Survey: A Study of
Building Sickness, Building Use Studies, London, 1987.
[22] A. Kwok, Thermal Boredom, in: Proceedings of PLEA, Cambridge
UK, 2000.
[23] S. Kuno, Comfort and Pleasantness, in: Proceedings of the Pan
Pacific Symposium on Building and Urban Environmental Condition,
Nagoya, Japan, 1995.
[24] L. Heschong, Thermal Delight in Architecture, MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, MA, 1979.
[25] L. Fang, P. Wargocki, T. Witterseh, G. Clausen, P.O. Fanger, Field
study on the impact of temperature, humidity and ventilation on
perceived air quality, in: Proceedings of Indoor Air99a, Edinburgh,
Scotland, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 107112.
[26] O. Seppanen, W.J. Fisk, Association of ventilation system type with
SBS symptoms in office workers, Report, LBNL-47457, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 2001.
[27] R.J. de Dear, Sick building syndrome and appropriate design, in: A.
Auliciems (Ed.), Advances in Bioclimatology, Springer, Berlin, 1998,
pp. 87109.
R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 549561 561